Great effort and Ireland's best world cup performance wise
What a game for the casual viewers!
Ireland needed the set piece to work well and it didn't. Well targeted by Nz. Congrats to them
If you reveal that you felt 'someone' lost something we didn't have and never had, then you 100% felt 'entitled'.
What the actual fcuk?
Give the management some respect and work out why their view might have been more credible.
I hope this isn't addressed at me because if you think I don't have HUGE respect for Farrell then you know nothing about me. FWIW, I don't believe he's infallible either.
Yes, a poster said it.
'they lost us a World Cup'
Go on, tell us how you lose something you never had?
Your definition of respect is different to mine I guess. I certainly would not be making out that a coach I respect overlooked/ignored/acted out of fear of a player's status etc
I accept he was in a better position than me to judge what was required and what he wanted, and that is fine.
I haven't read Pat Spillane's coloum as I don't subscribe to The Irish Independent (and even if I did I probably wouldn't read it).
Rugby does tend to have more collegial punditry but I'd put that down to it being a product of the mutual respect that has been core to 'rugby values'.
If Spillane thinks that Irish rugby is lacking because it's pundits are less critical then he should avoid watching it. Perhaps he'd enjoy a more 'rassie' type approach.
So you think he's infallible.
I don't
Now you are making things up.
I respect the decision he made was not on the basis of incompetence/or pressures other than trying to win the game or that I am smarter than him.
He made a decision, it didn't work out. I am not going to waste my time fantasising about it.
e.g., Sexton threw many passes to players in that phase, one to Gary Ringrose, who failed to break the line when he would have in another game. Are my knives out for Ringrose or Farrell for not picking someone else or replacing him?
Did I believe that AF had proved himself capable in his role and that his decisions were to be respected, yes.
Do I think that I'm able to comment on other peoples fallibility, no. Respect & (blind) faith are not the same thing.
AF earned my respect.
What's everyone complaining about? As the captain said "we won". It doesn't matter that we fell at the first hurdle yet again. The real trophy was the friends we made along the way. They're all heroes.
Sure let's just thrash everything and throw the toys because we didn't get what we were entitled to.
It’s a rugby forum. People are going to discuss coaches decisions. Some are going to disagree with those decisions.
The implication that anyone doing so is “wasting their time fantasising about it” is a bit on the condescending side tbh.
And those second guessing a coach's in-game decision from the pub/sofa or side line on the basis that he overlooked or ignored Sexton's fatigue are being what exactly?
… offering their opinion.
For those like me who respect Farrell, does that mean from now on we can't question his team selection, the timing of substitutions, etc?
We may as well close down the rugby forum if that is what people want.
That's the crux of the matter. No adapting to the kiwis closing the gap and the inability to fix whatever problems Porter has.
Carberry was getting the minutes when he was healthy. Healy was also eating up minutes. Crowley was 3rd choice at Munster! Ireland's problem was that Carberry is not a good out half. Yet he was Sextons back up.
You're right, for one of the top rugby nations in the world, winning just one knockout game in 10 World Cups is far too much to ask for. How entitled of me to expect the team to get past the first hurdle just once.
And it is condescending to suggest that it was anything other than a decision based on his info, experience and the demands of the situation.
To state that Sexton was fatigued and he 'should' have seen that or that he was afraid of Sexton's status etc, is to put yourself above him.
He took all the factors into consideration, made his in -game decision and it didn't work out. That's part of the job and par for the course.
Has 'asking' worked for you? Why don't you 'ask' again in 4 years time, sure if you ask you get eh?
Pay attention to this part of your post...'for one of the top rugby nations'
That's what we were and are. Just 'one' of the top nations and we came up against another of the top nations and it didn't go our way this time.
Funny how you keep harping on this, "dead on his feet" etc, yet nothing about all the other players who were shagged. Beirne caught a ball and gently laid down for a nap in the last sequence.
Can you throw out some analysis of how Sexton was bad exactly?
It's not rocket science, we had one sub left on the bench, the obvious replacement was a like for like swap, sub Sexton for the fresh Crowley
Which you have no knowledge as to whether that would've done anything. The team marched down the field just fine with Sexton. We had an overlap out wide that Ringrose blew. A fresh McCarthy failed to clear out a ruck and that's all she wrote.
You and Akrasia are presuming everything positive for Crowley coming on and making a claim that Sexton was playing badly to justify it. Nothing to do with red tinted perspectivea I'm sure
and making a claim that Sexton was playing badly to justify it.
Really, I have previously highlighted areas in the last 10-15 minutes of Sexton's game where he was well below his own standard, he was well below the standard you'd want from an outhalf playing for their country in knockout rugby. If you can't see that then that's on you.
And how does that compare to the other players on the field? You want to hold him in isolation from the game being played. Every player on the pitch was shattered. I would dispute he was playing far below his standard. He helped orchestrate us moving the ball down the field at the death.
I'll repeat, there was only one sub unused, the sub was a replacement outhalf, the outhalf was a 38yo who at that time in the game was not up to his own standards. What's outrageous in suggesting he should have been subbed.
If Joe McCarthy was on the bench, I'd be saying why leave him on the bench when a lock was out on their feet.
If John Cooney was on the bench I'd be saying why not sub a tired scrumhalf.
This ^. We were still going forward when Whitelock didn't release and got the judgement. Young and inexperienced McCarthy's lack of a decisive clearout factored into that...but but Sexton.
Tired old record at this stage.
we keep been told it's a 23 man game subs are there to come on and have an impact.
yet in a QF which we lost we only used 22.
that doesn't sit well with me. no one has subs just for injuries any more. just seemed that there coastal loss of judgement at a crucial moment.
Well never know because that dice wasn't rolled.
If there was a spare 2nd row on the bench and Beirne was left on despite being exhausted I'd have been just as critical of that decision.
Sexton was mediocre all game and got worse as the game went on, his kicking and overall distribution was poor, he was too predictable in attack. If it was anyone else, you'd agree he had a 3 star game at best. It's not like he was holding the team together all on his own and Farrell couldn't bring him off because he was delivering so much..
Aside from the rugby...I think one thing is clear once again and that is Ireland were the best fans of the tournament. I have talked to some French fiends and they could not get over the numbers of Irish fans who travelled. Not sure if there is an actual award handed out but think that's one we would win hands down
And NZ only used 21...
Did they have a 38yo playing for them? Did they win the match?
You say he was mediocre, without offering any examples of how. He was key to us fighting our way back into the game, where we were Jordie Barrett's thigh away from taking the lead. You're looking for a stick to beat Farrell with, regardless of the evidence.
